Andrew D – Marketing Director

It’s an interesting question. I’m conflicted on the subject. I think on some level that observing same sex coupling in animals gives further relevance to the existence of homosexuality as something we are born with rather than something we chose. But then how could we really know whether animals chose or not? As humans have an obvious connection to our animal brethren via our evolutionary channels and progression, it’s natural to want to examine these occurrences and consider their validation. Or at least to consider their relevance if any.

On the other hand I find it slightly crude to need to justify human homosexuality by acknowledging that other species, closely related or not, also reflect these qualities. It should be enough that large quantities of humans across the world identify as LGBT to validate that we are in fact LGBT. Nobody needs to validate that humans can be born Albino by examining that animals also are born without pigmentation! Obviously that is something we can see with our eyes without having to exhibit behaviors or tendencies, but the underlying principle is the same if you believe homosexuals are born that way, and I definitely believe that.

I ultimately think that humans are humans and animals are animals and while we can draw parallels between the two, we are still different species and need to be seen that way. If we want an answer to why humans are gay we should study humans! Plain and simple.

Arthur – Sports Writer

Since when has rational science had a meaningful impact on the use of religious dogmatic language? Homosexuality isn’t something new, historically. It’s just now viewed in a much different way than it has before. Animals (which humans are) have sex. Sometimes with the same sex. Why do we all make such a big deal about this?

Jean – Staff Contributor

I love animals. Even more if they are gay. Unfortunately people who are against homosex are often simultaneously against evolution, so those folks don’t think we are at all related to animals or that we could have the same senses or bahaviors. thus its a bad argument: “Animals have gay relationships, not humans.” sigh, the cycle continues.

Levi – Staff Contributer

I am reminded of the “Big Gay Al’s Big Gay Boatride” episode of South Park.
Though somehow I am nervous that some conservatives are going to start trying more radical gay conversion methods on these gay animals (because it is way easier to experiment with harmful and inhumane things on animals than it is to people) to try to prove that homosexuality can be “cured”.

raphael – LA Editor

It makes me realize how censored our biological education really is.
When highschools neglect to teach us about the diversity of animal and
human sexuality, they make us feel like we are apart from the normal
range.

Somehow, I don’t think this will make it into the textbooks in Texas….

t – Contributor

I think this is a fascinating but very complicated issue. I liked this
article a lot because I felt it didn’t assume very much, presented a
lot of clear unbiased facts and asked the right questions, leaving
many doors open.

Reading this made me wonder if maybe we’ve been adhering to theories
we assume to be (and are generally) true but may not be as
all-encompassing as we think. For instance, natural selection. We
assume all animals are heterosexual and assume they mate solely for
the purpose of creating offspring because we know genes are selfish
and seek self-replication. But what if it’s more complicated than
that? What if our search for a mate is not only about the physical act
of sex but also long-term well-being. I don’t know how scientifically
this could make sense, but reading this article and thinking about all
these animals who appear to be in “homosexual” RELATIONSHIPS (not just
having GAY SEX) made me wonder if we are a) misunderstanding or not
fully understanding natural selection and/or b) over-analyzing what is
“natural” and why.

I think we tend to make things overly complicated when maybe the more
obvious answer has been sitting in front of us the whole time -
homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality because sexuality is
not just about sex and reproduction. We’re more complex than that,
let’s dig a little deeper, think a little harder and maybe we’ll come
up with some more insightful explanations for “why” homosexuality
exists in nature…if this is even a question we wish to spend so much
precious time answering.

Topher – TV Columnist

I sent my Mating Systems professor a link to both of those stories, in a sort of apology for making a mockery of what was a really great class. Instead of telling me I was an idiot, and also instead of telling me I was a beautiful genius, she replied quite simply:

“Recent research suggests that male homosexuality is an offshoot of a trait that increases female reproductive success… no one has figured out the lesbians (as usual). Good to hear from you.”

She’s a lesbian herself, so didn’t mean any real offense to the ladies, but geez, right? What a science teacher!

For me the best part about these advances in scientific study is not what it proves, but the place it gives me. I’ve always loved biology, and have felt oddly excluded from the whole thing. I mean, in a very basic sense our biological sexual desires remove us from evolution. That to me felt like Darwin was labeling me, not as flawed, but just as not even worth considering. Not “natural” in any way.

Now, at least I’ve got a place in the mix. Sure, the religious right is going to use this against us, but they do that with everything! And sure, a male lion having sex with another male lion doesn’t give either one of them the healthy babies that Darwin puts such a premium on. But at least science is starting to take notice of what those two sexy lions are doing to each other, and isn’t afraid to study it honestly.

zack – Editor-in-Chief

This is all our fault. Before the rise of the gay movement, animals like bears and otters had no sexualized connotations, so they didn’t even think to mate with anything other than the opposite sex. Than us pesky homos came along and taught them how to be perverts. what’s next, the teaching of sodomy in schools of fish?